Since commercial airliners routinely ﬂy in the region where cold
cirrus clouds exist,it is hoped that the seeding material could either be

(1) dissolved or suspended in their jet fuel and later burned with the fuel to create seeding aerosol,

or

(2) injected into the hot engine exhaust, which should vaporize the seeding material, allowing it to condense as aerosol in the jet contrail.

The objective would not be to seed speciﬁc cloud systems but rather to build up a background concentration of aerosol seeding material so that the
air masses that cirrus will form in will contain the appropriate amount of seeding material to produce larger ice crystals.

Since the residence time of seeding material might be on the order of 1–2 weeks, release rates of seeding material would need to account for this.
With the delivery process already existing, this geoengineering approach may be less expensive than other proposed approaches.

4. Norms for climate engineering research
Once it progresses from computer modeling and engineering research into climatic experiments, SWCE research acquires the same ethically dubious
features as research on human and animal subjects. It exposes humans, animals, and ecosystems to potentially serious risks in ways that could be
coercive or exploitative Note4.

Though SWCE research differs from canonical cases of ethically dubious biomedical research in that its effects on humans and animals are indirect, the
potential severity of its effects merits the application of ethical norms similar to those governing biomedical studies. We suggest that SWCE research
is, in this respect, similar to nuclear weapons testing, in which an experiment's indirect effects are dangerous enough to be ethically significant
[27].

Scientists have developed a number of basic norms to guide research on human subjects, as well as some principles for research involving animals,
which can be extended to encompass SWCE research. These basic principles are expressed in the US Government's Belmont Report [34] and in Russell and
Burch's The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique [48], among other sources (see [35]).

Sure, point me to which bits, specifically, you don't understand. I will do my best to explain. (First of all: you realise that both of these links
are talking about hypothetical scenarios, right?)

I don't want to be a human guinea pig.

And that is exactly what that paper is talking about avoiding.

Today, society questions or condemns as unethical and immoral behavior the actions of past generations of researchers who thought it would be
acceptable to endanger people and ecosystems for various scientific purposes related to the welfare of the general public.

...

This letter focuses on the ethical concerns surrounding climatic SWCE research, which we believe must be addressed before any such studies take
place.

...

The next steps in the development and implementation of these norms involve further discussion among scientists, ethicists, and the public about
whether and how to carry out SWCE research, as well as discussion in the international diplomatic community about an agreement on parameters
for acceptable SWCE research and institutions for ensuring compliance with that agreement.

In short: Full openness and public discussion is needed before any such studies take place. Quite the opposite of the underhand secrecy that people
like Wigington pretend is going to happen (or already happens!)

The reason I remember is two-fold -- I (like many kids) was interested in aviation, so news reports about high-flying jets interested me. In
addition, I had a really good science teacher back in the 1970s who was also interested in aviation -- and he would have class discussions about how
contrails form and how they can create clouds.

Wow, the disinformation campaign was happening 40 years ago!

What would the point of this ''disinformation campaign''?

Who that has money, could of made more money with a campaing like this 40 years ago?

The reason I remember is two-fold -- I (like many kids) was interested in aviation, so news reports about high-flying jets interested me. In
addition, I had a really good science teacher back in the 1970s who was also interested in aviation -- and he would have class discussions about how
contrails form and how they can create clouds.

Wow, the disinformation campaign was happening 40 years ago!

What would the point of this ''disinformation campaign''?

Who that has money, could of made more money with a campaing like this 40 years ago?

You just aren't making any sense.

When I close my eyes, I too tend to sleep better.

I think you are missing the irony in my post! I was quoting Dane Wigington, who claims that all science education is a mass conspiracy to cover up the
TROOF about chemtrails.

He even claims that old films and TV programmes are being rereleased with contrails "Photoshopped" into them, to make out that they were common in the
past. Seriously, he really claims this.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Welcome to the madness of chemtrails on ATS.

Actually, lately the discussions on geo-engineering have been much more intellectual than what I consider to be ''madness''. If you can't notice
this, you are being too subjective to your personal opinions.

originally posted by: Rob48
I think you are missing the irony in my post! I was quoting Dale Wiginton, who claims that all science education is a mass conspiracy to cover up the
TROOF about chemtrails.

No I missed that one hehe

Yes I know people tend to categorize the open minded in the same pool than extremists that the MSM brings the spotlight on to dismiss intelligent
discussion.

Now, spy ops is a conspiracy in itself which actually makes people believe, and fight with their faith, that nothing in wrong in the skies just like
there's nothing wrong with GMO's.

Sorry but, if there was really a science education conspiracy, making people believe it's just contrails is EXACTLY what their goal would be.

Think like psychopath that wants power and money!
You'll see right trough what they want us to believe.

Surfer... I didn't insult you there. I've always assumed you're near equal in age to me. Those events happened 13 years ago and we have A LOT of 20
somethings on ATS. Someone who is 21 years old today was around 8 years old when the towers fell and can have NO earthly recollection of what the week
following that event was like, let alone recall the crystal clear blues of skies with nothing in them for the first time in decades.

How many here remember in practical terms to discuss with detail....events of a particular week at 7 or 8 years old?

In that sense...it's fair to draw the distinction in a general way. If you actually are among the age group that was a child when the 9/11 came, then
my bad. I'd have phrased it differently if I'd known that to be the case.

edit on 7/4/2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: Edited years since event to
be more exact

Actually, lately the discussions on geo-engineering have been much more intellectual than what I consider to be ''madness''. If you can't notice
this, you are being too subjective to your personal opinions.

I say madness because trying to represent something that may or may not be used sometime in the future and equating those persistent contrails with
geoengineering without any evidence to back the claim. So yes it is madness.

So it has nothing to do with my personal opinion, because you can go back on any of my posts on any thread on this subject and you will see I don't
dismiss the fact it may happen in the future, but when it comes to happening today I have seen no proof it is happening.

I'm afraid I don't have a comprehensive list. Wigington seems to be the most visible.

There's also an outfit called "SkyderALERT", I'm not too sure who is behind it (I think it's an Alex Jones thing) but their schtick is selling an app
that lets people take photos of clouds and send them to the government! Oh and their website is full of "donate now" and store links... Buy the app,
buy the DVD.

Recently I tried to track down the earliest mention of chemtrails that I could find. (The origins of conspiracy theories intrigue me!)

Weirdly, if you search Usenet there are no mentions of the word at all prior to 1999. Then it suddenly explodes into life.
The original culprit appears to be one William Thomas, who seems to have cooked the story up for a radio interview with Art Bell in March 1999. Here
is an archive copy of one of his early postings: www.padrak.com...

By the way, my scorn is really reserved for those who claim contrails are chemtrails and that spraying is happening now.

Concern about possible future geoengineering projects, I can understand. I think that would be a foolhardy thing to do. I don't think it should be
done. But it won't be done without full disclosure.

There's also an outfit called "SkyderALERT", I'm not too sure who is behind it (I think it's an Alex Jones thing) but their schtick is selling an
app that lets people take photos of clouds and send them to the government! Oh and their website is full of "donate now" and store links... Buy the
app, buy the DVD.

You're right that modification of cirrus clouds is not the same as SRM.

It is however a form of climate engineering aka geo-engineering.

The key to cirrus modification will be with making clouds in the day that are thick enough to reflect some of the Sun's radiation. But that are also
thin enough to dissipate by night fall and thus will not trap in heat.

Greenhouse gases and cirrus clouds regulate outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and cirrus
cloud coverage is predicted to be sensitive to the ice fall speed which depends on ice crystal
size.

... Geoengineering ideas have been classiﬁed into two categories
(Lenton and Vaughan 2009): (1) those increasing reﬂectance
of solar radiation and (2) those increasing outgoing longwave
radiation (OLR) by removing greenhouse gases like carbon
dioxide. The geoengineering idea proposed in this letter ﬁts
in neither of these categories, although it would if category 2
were broadened by removing the restriction of greenhouse gas
removal. The idea proposed is to cool surface temperatures by
reducing the coverage of high cirrus clouds to increase OLR.

As I read it, this is about reducing cirrus clouds. Cirri cause net warming if I'm not mistaken.

Please understand what I'm getting at. Contrail generation causes warming. At least IMO, SRM methods would be more efficient without making trails.
That's the purpose of the high altitude studies. Mainly between the tropics, high enough to be deployed in the relative 'dryness' of the
stratosphere where trails would rarely form.

I'm against efforts to 'complete the evolution of Gaia' by creation of the 'sulfursphere', but I think that's what some are hell bent on doing.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.